My C8 vs Orion 8" f/4 Astrograph???!!!

[gary1968]

Not to rain on your parade mate, but I don't think that orion is a proper astrograph, more of a marketing gimmick if you ask me..

As others have said, imaging with a refractor it's a lot easier...

Just my 2p's worth..

Nadeem.

Nadeem, what makes an Astrograph an Astrograph?

I thought if a scope was optimised for imaging then it is an Astrograph.... The scope he bought has fast F4 optics, a large secondary for full chip illumination, baffles..... etc. Granted it needs a coma corrector but other than that?????

Gary

[Deneb]

How flat is the field ? This is not a true Astrograph, I would have bought one of these instead of my MN190 if it was. I really don't mean to be sarcastic or rude, but the price you have to buy for something really optimised for Astrophotography it would make buying the MN190 pointless. It just annoys me when manufactures term a scope a "Super Scope" or an "Astrograph" When its not.

Mind you though Orion USA do produce a Mak Newt - Now thats an Astrograph !

Nadeem.

[gary1968]

Ah, that makes sense.

Its true, you get what you pay for. These GSO scopes are pretty good for the money I suppose, and do work well with a coma corrector.

The Orion Mak Newt, I believe, is the same as the SW one, made also by Synta..... oh if had the cash for that, but that would also require a bigger mount.

Its horses for courses I suppose.....

Gary

[AlexxxAA]

Thats true guys... If we all had loads of money, then we would have some freakin awesome and expensive equipment. However, we get what we can. If i had my way, i would have bought myself some killer gear like a 12" Ritchey type, or a 5"-6" triplet APO.

But for my budget, i am expremely happy with my new Newt. I know it is going to give me years of work and joy. And i have my ZS80 for wider fields as well

Cant wait to get all my equipment to cooperate with each other and start uploading some pictures and try to make you guys proud with all the help youve given me.

Cheers guys.

Clear skies.

[angusb1]

Andromeda Galaxy

scottishastronomers.com - DSO Photos/M31-Kielder-Autumn 2010

Rosette Nebula

scottishastronomers.com - DSO Photos/Rosette Nebula-21/02/10

Sadr region in Cygnus

scottishastronomers.com - DSO Photos/Sadr Region in Cygnus

Veil Nebula- Eastern Section

scottishastronomers.com - DSO Photos/Veil Nebula-East.

These are some images taken with my unmodded 1000d and the Orion 8" F4 Newt.

Gary - were these images made using the coma corrector?

[Whippy]

How flat is the field ? This is not a true Astrograph, I would have bought one of these instead of my MN190 if it was. I really don't mean to be sarcastic or rude, but the price you have to buy for something really optimised for Astrophotography it would make buying the MN190 pointless. It just annoys me when manufactures term a scope a "Super Scope" or an "Astrograph" When its not.

Mind you though Orion USA do produce a Mak Newt - Now thats an Astrograph !

Nadeem, an astrograph is a scope that's optimised for imaging rather than observing, nothing more than that. In this case, these GSO f4 newts (as Gary has already pointed out) have an oversized secondary, baffles, the focus point moved for cameras... Sounds just like your 'astrograph' does it not? It also sounds much like my RC which is an astrograph, that suffers from field curvature to an extent (as all RC's do) so I can't see how you can get annoyed TBH. Your Mak-Newt is as much of an astrograph as these f4 newts are.

Tony..

[gary1968]

Another point I thought of was field flatness....... The Mak Newt has a flat field yes? But it has a flat field because it is corrected by the glass at the fron of the OTA. My Orion, and Alexs' Astro Tech have a flat field too, if they are used with a coma corrector.

Surely then the GSO's and the Mak Newt are both Astrographs as they both produce flat fields, its only that the 'corrector' glass is in a different position.....

Gary

[gary1968]

Gary - were these images made using the coma corrector?

Sorry Angus, missed this point, yes they were taken using the Baader MPCC.

Gary

[Whippy]

Another point I thought of was field flatness....... The Mak Newt has a flat field yes? But it has a flat field because it is corrected by the glass at the fron of the OTA. My Orion, and Alexs' Astro Tech have a flat field too, if they are used with a coma corrector.

Surely then the GSO's and the Mak Newt are both Astrographs as they both produce flat fields, its only that the 'corrector' glass is in a different position.....

Gary

Having a flat field is a bonus Gary, of course! But it doesn't make a scope an astrograph, my old Intes Mak-Newt has a flat field but it's no astrograph. You're right though with the comparison between the GSO's and the Mak-Newts in that they're both corrected newtonians .

Tony..

[angusb1]

Sorry Angus, missed this point, yes they were taken using the Baader MPCC.

Gary

Cheers Gary. Very nice images btw.

I was curious because I ran one through the 3D curvature plot in CCD Inspector and it came out pretty flat. Given that you're using a DSLR with a pretty large sensor I think that makes it a really excellent scope for astroimaging on all counts.

I have been following this thread partly because I am hoping to progress to using my 10" F4.3 newt for imaging once I iron out the bugbears with guiding my mount and focusing etc. (I'm currently using telephoto lenses). My newt isn't baffled but otherwise its very similar to the Orion Astrograph. Like has been said above, the coma corrected newt is very similar to the mak-newt in principle, its just that the correction is done at the focuser rather than having the corrector lens at the front/top of the OTA. I prefer a newt with coma corrector in some ways as the cooldown time is much less due to the open tube. Still, I think it largely comes down to personal preference and in the case of the Orion Astrograph the price is attractive as well.

@AlexxxAA - best of luck with your new scope! I bet its very good for visual on DSOs as well.

[AlexxxAA]

Thanks Angus!

I am extremely pleased with my purchase! i took my first stack with it the other night and was amazed at the difference in the result!

I posted it on the "Imaging - Deep Space" section, if you guys want to check it out. Its called "My First Deep Space Stack, M42".

Gary already stopped by and commented

[Deneb]

Nadeem, an astrograph is a scope that's optimised for imaging rather than observing, nothing more than that. In this case, these GSO f4 newts (as Gary has already pointed out) have an oversized secondary, baffles, the focus point moved for cameras... Sounds just like your 'astrograph' does it not? It also sounds much like my RC which is an astrograph, that suffers from field curvature to an extent (as all RC's do) so I can't see how you can get annoyed TBH. Your Mak-Newt is as much of an astrograph as these f4 newts are.

Tony..

So are you saying Tony, we shouldn't bother buying MN190's because we can get the same deal from buying a gso "astrograph"? at a much cheaper price offering same or almost the same performance of a Mak Newt.

Why do suppliers refer then to the MN190 being a proper Astrograph ! I remember very well questioning the supplier before buying the MN190 how does the scope compare to the rest of the Newt "astrographs" out there. I was told "the others were not classified as true astrographs" or are they just lying to their customers.... ? when we can buy something less damaging to our wallets.. I won't bother mentioning the supplier.. Just in case I get a ban..

Nadeem

[Whippy]

So are you saying Tony, we shouldn't bother buying MN190's because we can get the same deal from buying a gso "astrograph"? at a much cheaper price offering same or almost the same performance of a Mak Newt.

Why do suppliers refer then to the MN190 being a proper Astrograph ! I remember very well questioning the supplier before buying the MN190 how does the scope compare to the rest of the Newt "astrographs" out there. I was told "the others were not classified as true astrographs" or are they just lying to their customers.... ? when we can buy something less damaging to our wallets.. I won't bother mentioning the supplier.. Just in case I get a ban..

Nadeem

No, what I'm saying is that the GSO scopes are just as much of an astrograph as the MN190's in that they're both a standard design optimised for imaging. If you want a 'true' (by your definition) astrograph, have a look at the Intes Micro range of Maksutov based tubes, they're a seperate, purpose built modified design compared to their observing tubes, same goes for the Takahashi Epsilon. No-one is lying so there's no need to start throwing accusations around.

What I do object to is (in your own words) is 'raining on people's parades' about their recent purchases, telling them that their scope isn't a proper astrograph (note I'm not putting the word astrograph in quote marks) and that it isn't as good as another scope (and one you conveniently own). There's a fair few owners of both scopes who are happy with the results they get and if that's the case then great.

Tony..

[Deneb]

Fair point Tony.. I was a bit harsh, sorry Alex & Gary...

Nadeem

[Whippy]

Thanks Nadeem .

Tony..

[AlexxxAA]

[AlexxxAA]

Thanks tony and nadeem

Ill try make everyone on this thread proud with some good pictures in the near future

[gary1968]

Thanks for the input and advice Tony, and no offence taken Nadeem.....

Gary